Posted by ckohtz on 11/09/09

Published Nov 9th, 2009 in the Journal Star:

I woke up this morning and discovered my family had once again been robbed. No, our house wasn't broken into. This was a bit more sinister, and I learned about it on the news.

Five of the perpetrators were from Nebraska. They, with their colleagues, took it on the morning of Friday, Nov. 6. They took it from me, they took it from my children and they took it from my grandchildren.

It's difficult to understand their motive, although I suspect it was for personal gain. What might be confusing to some is that they aren't keeping the money for themselves. They're actually giving it to my neighbors. Anyone who wants it, in fact. I've even been thinking about trying to get some of it back myself, although out of principle I just can't bring myself to do it.

I'm talking about the Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009, which lets those who buy a home for the first time get an $8,000 tax credit, or $6,500 for those who already own a home and buy another one.

The most upsetting thing to me is that although we have four representatives in Congress who say they are Republicans, they voted for it, too. Just to be clear, they are Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, Rep. Adrian Smith, Rep. Lee Terry and Sen. Mike Johanns. Sen. Ben Nelson voted for it, but I didn't expect otherwise.

Each one of these thieves - individuals who voted to take my money and give it to someone else in exchange for votes and/or support from the real estate industry - are now directly responsible for the next housing bubble, higher inflation and increase in government debt. Not one of them will receive my vote again.

Craig Kohtz, Lincoln

Posted 11/09/09 sweetliberty San Rafael, CA

Great letter! :)

Posted 11/09/09 Robyn Hamlin Saint Louis, MO

We are all being robbed but some people won't realize it until it actually takes food off their children's table.

Posted 11/09/09 BillNM Carlsbad, NM

Good letter. However, avarice on the part of the legislators is involved, since in socialism the leaches sit in the middle and take their cut as the money is passed along.

Posted by ckohtz on 10/15/09

New York is forcing it's health care employees to get flu shots. If they don't, they're out the door.

Dr. Gus Birkhead, New York's deputy health commissioner, says the state has never gotten even 40 percent of its health care workers immunized against flu -- despite what he calls "year-in, year-out" campaigns to persuade them to get flu shots. So two years ago, officials began thinking about a different approach.

"I think it was really sitting around each year reviewing what had happened and all of our efforts, and then being disappointed by the end result," he says. "We began to come around to this idea that some kind of a requirement was going to be needed."

- N.Y. Mandates Flu Shots For Health Care Workers

The majority of health care workers in the United States don't get flu vaccinations. Maybe because they see first hand the risks and benefits associated with the shots and deem the risk not worth the benefit. Maybe they are unable to see any benefit at all. So it's disturbing when administrators and bureaucrats, people who don't see the day to day results, decide that it should be a requirement. It's especially disturbing when when it's the government making the decision.

To be fair, there really isn't a difference between a private employer forcing you to inject a new and untested vaccine into your system verses the government. The point is that nobody should be able to force you to taking a vaccine in order to continue employment. That's what freedom is, the right to choose for yourself. But the government's role in our lives was meant to be limited. And it was meant to protect our freedom, not take it away.

This flu is no more deadly then any other flu, but it gives administrators, bureaucrats and the CDC purpose. It lets them justify their existence and the money they spend, and it probably makes a small percentage of people very rich. Flu vaccines weren't much of a profit center a few years ago. A lot of companies made vaccines, but were thinking about getting rid of them. How convenient that something like the Swine Flu came along. You don't hear stories about struggling flu vaccine making pharmaceutical companies any more.

It's just very disturbing to hear Dr. Gus Birkhead talk about his program. I think his attitude is becoming more and more prevalent, and exemplifies the period of history we now live in. He's and his colleges are here to help. They have been trying to help for years and they are fed up. So from now on it doesn't matter if you want help or not, it will be forced upon you. This is socialism. Doing things for the "greater good" at the expense of the individual. Take your medicine, be it a vaccine or a bailout. The privileged few know best.

For more information on the flu vaccine and it's effectiveness, read "Does the Vaccine Matter?"

The history of flu vaccination suggests other reasons to doubt claims that it dramatically reduces mortality. In 2004, for example, vaccine production fell behind, causing a 40 percent drop in immunization rates. Yet mortality did not rise. In addition, vaccine "mismatches" occurred in 1968 and 1997: in both years, the vaccine that had been produced in the summer protected against one set of viruses, but come winter, a different set was circulating. In effect, nobody was vaccinated. Yet death rates from all causes, including flu and the various illnesses it can exacerbate, did not budge.

For more of my posts, visit kohtz.org

Posted by ckohtz on 10/07/09

With all the big banks getting bailout money, they have been doing quite well. Unfortunately it has come at the expense of the little banks. After all, the big banks can borrow directly from the Federal Reserve at a near zero percent interest rates. It's free money, it's not theirs, and if they lose it they know they will get bailed out. When you're risking someone else's money (no risk), you can offer whatever kind of deal you want. Little banks can't do that because they know they won't be bailed out. As a result, they offer fewer loans, but they still have to compete. This means they have to lower their lending standards, loan money at the same rate, and if a few too many defaults happen they go under. They are at a big disadvantage and are losing. As proof of this, the three biggest mortgage lenders -- Wells Fargo, Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase now account for almost 52% of new home mortgages in the first half of 2009, compared with only a 37% share in 2007 (according to the article below).

So to try and keep the little guys from dying off, the government has decided to give them money as well. See Fannie, Freddie Aid Mortgage Banks: Report.

Fannie Mae (FNM Quote)and Freddie Mac (FRE Quote) are in the process of introducing a program that will help independent mortgage banks acquire short-term credit for financing home loans and also reduce risks these banks are exposed to, a report says.

[ . . . ]

The objective of the program appears to be aimed at supporting independent mortgage banks which have either gone out of business or are losing market share to better-capitalized firms over the past two years.

This is a perfect example of what happens when you mess with the free market. It creates a giant web of unintended consequences. Because of their arrogance, the people in power think they can fix these problems through more market manipulation. Unfortunately for them and us, the market always wins.

The Federal Reserve has already socialized failure for the large banks, spreading the losses to tax payers while letting the banks reward themselves with money they make off their free loans. The great bank welfare program of the early 21st century is having consequences that are a little too obvious and visible for them (small banks die, large banks make billions). In order to keep up the appearance of competition, their solution is to give risk free money to all banks, all in the name of helping the consumer. It's good work if you can get it.

The end result will ultimately be a faster transfer of wealth from the lower and middle class to the top 5-10%. It happens through higher taxes in part, but mostly it occurs from inflation. The money being given to these banks is created by the Federal Reserve. Every dollar created makes our existing dollars worth less. Eventually, people won't want our money anymore (see Inflation On The Way). If they do do accept it, they'll want a lot more of it.

Read more of my thoughts at kohtz.org.

Posted by ckohtz on 09/17/09

I just heard a story on NPR that made me wonder what planet politicians are from. House Bill Lets Students Bypass Private Lenders.

The House is expected to vote on a bill Thursday that would let students borrow directly from the U-S Treasury - instead of from private lenders subsidized by the government. House Democrats say this would save millions in the long run. But the bill has opponents in the loan industry - and obstacles in the Senate

This absolutely blows my mind! Here is the reasoning behind the bill. The government backs a vast majority of student loans in the United States. This means banks lend students money who are at high risk of defaulting on the loan - the reason for government backing. When the students eventually do default on their loan, banks get to keep the profits while the tax payer (via government backing) is stuck with the bill.

So, the solution according to Washington is to take out the middle man - the banks. This will include Nelnet btw, which employs about 1000 people in Nebraska including several of my friends. Under the proposed bill, students would get loans directly from the Treasury Department. The government would then be able to offer lower interest rates and reduce lending standards even more, which would allow more people to go to college. The government and tax payers would "save" the billions of dollars the banks were making off the loan defaults because the evil profits would be eliminated.

Do I even need to say what the obvious problems with this would be? I hardly know where to begin. First, it's not savings. The lawmakers writing this bill already have these "savings" spent. In fact, that's one "problem" with the bill in the House, everyone wants to get their hands on that money and spend it. They're tripping over themselves and getting in each others way to get their hands on it. This is proof they aren't concerned with our tax money at all. It's a bold faced lie. That money should go to the bad loans! That's the whole point of the bill!

Second, by giving out more loans at lower interest rates, they are going to create an even bigger education bubble then we already have. Colleges will grow bigger, hire more teachers, buy more equipment, and enroll more students. Over time, they will need to maintain the buildings, pay the teachers and replace the equipment. Since everyone is already enrolled in college who wants to go, they will need to raise tuition. This will cause more students to get government loans (who in their right mind would lend someone without a job $50,000 - $100,000 to get a sociology degree that might earn them $30,000/year?), cause more defaults, and require more tax payer bailouts. Then there will be talk about a "public option" in education because nobody can afford it. College will become a "right" of every American.

The fact is, a lot of people aren't cut out for college. Standards are so low now, and money so easy to get, that only 54% of students who enter a 4 year program have a degree 6 years later. College is becoming so expensive, that it is ruining students financial futures before they even have a chance at getting a job. This bill will exasperate the problem exponentially.

If this happens, the next obvious step is with housing. Why should all these banks be making money off government backed loans people can't pay back? I have pointed out numerous times how the government is already backing the vast majority of new loans. And isn't owning a house an American "right" already?

I won't even go into the fact that the U.S. is already broke. This is absolutely unbelievable. If you work at Nelnet, you might want to consider calling your representative today before they get a chance to vote.

Read more of my blog posts at kohtz.org.

Posted 09/18/09 JFeldman Kearney, NE

You know I heard that same story this morning and thought the same things. I thought it was odd that the prime news of the day was Mary of Peter, Paul, and Mary dying with all the other things going on in the world. Your absolutely right, and you did a good job articulating it.

Posted by ckohtz on 07/22/09
Last updated 07/22/09

I was doing a little research on our founding fathers in regards to limited government for a response to a friends suggestion that some of our founding fathers wanted a strong federal government. I respect my friend a lot, and while this is somewhat true (some wanted a stronger federal government more then others), I wanted to argue that their definition of a strong federal government would have been vastly different then ours.

Anyway, in my research I found the following quote which somewhat amazed me. My argument was that Madison feared that the term "general welfare" in the constitution left room for misinterpretation, and that people would use this to increase government, even though that was not the intent.

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."

Posted 07/22/09 USAF Rugy Lebanon, IL

That is some very, very scary foresight. Is there a reference for that?